A simple question.

[Czernobog]

Evolution in Medicine

The most obvious example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance.​

For example...

 

[BulletProof]

Evolution in Medicine

The most obvious example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance.​

For example...

Hey dumbshit, you'd have a stronger argument if you insisted jumping is proof you can fly.

 

[Czernobog]

Evolution in Medicine

The most obvious example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance.​

For example...

Hey dumbshit, you'd have a stronger argument if you insisted jumping is proof you can fly.

Whatever, science denier. I have no time for inbred fucktards that deny science. Welcome to my ignore bin. Buh bye.

 

[BulletProof]

Hey dumbshit, you'd have a stronger argument if you insisted jumping is proof you can fly.

Whatever, science denier. I have no time for inbred fucktards that deny science. Welcome to my ignore bin. Buh bye.[/QUOTE]

Good riddance, you had nothing but dumb shit to say anyway, dumbshit. But, thank you for such classic dumb shit, like "Whatever God causes is uncaused" and "If you don't believe the sparrow evolved from a pig [or whatever], you deny all science."

 

[westwall]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

 

[westwall]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

 

[Dajjal]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

The one thing I learned from reading Richard Dawkins ' the God delusion' was that I am a deist.

I have spoken to the spirits of the departed through trance mediums, and experienced telepathy. So I know there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy. But it is clear enough to me that God does not directly interfere in creation. The spirits say there is a God and they should know, and they say he created a perfect system for spiritual evolution.
If the state of the world makes that seem unlikely give it another few million years and see what happens to our consciousness then. We are only beginners at life. A spirit guide I use to listen to said humanity is at the equivalent of kindergarten in our state of evolution.
I do not believe God ever interfered, and the bible is largely Jewish tribal myths. But behind the scenes there are spirits and angels subtly influencing us by inspiration and dreams, and the like.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

The one thing I learned from reading Richard Dawkins ' the God delusion' was that I am a deist.

I have spoken to the spirits of the departed through trance mediums, and experienced telepathy. So I know there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy. But it is clear enough to me that God does not directly interfere in creation. The spirits say there is a God and they should know, and they say he created a perfect system for spiritual evolution.
If the state of the world makes that seem unlikely give it another few million years and see what happens to our consciousness then. We are only beginners at life. A spirit guide I use to listen to said humanity is at the equivalent of kindergarten in our state of evolution.
I do not believe God ever interfered, and the bible is largely Jewish tribal myths. But behind the scenes there are spirits and angels subtly influencing us by inspiration and dreams, and the like.

Okay. We should pay more attention to your "magic ghosts" than to science. Thanks, no. Have a nice day.

 

[ding]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

The one thing I learned from reading Richard Dawkins ' the God delusion' was that I am a deist.

I have spoken to the spirits of the departed through trance mediums, and experienced telepathy. So I know there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy. But it is clear enough to me that God does not directly interfere in creation. The spirits say there is a God and they should know, and they say he created a perfect system for spiritual evolution.
If the state of the world makes that seem unlikely give it another few million years and see what happens to our consciousness then. We are only beginners at life. A spirit guide I use to listen to said humanity is at the equivalent of kindergarten in our state of evolution.
I do not believe God ever interfered, and the bible is largely Jewish tribal myths. But behind the scenes there are spirits and angels subtly influencing us by inspiration and dreams, and the like.

Okay. We should pay more attention to your "magic ghosts" than to science. Thanks, no. Have a nice day.

C.S. Lewis responds....

"...Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?..."

 

[ding]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

I'm not on the same page. That sounded like goobly gook to me.

The nature of the universe as it is is to produce beings that know and create (aka intelligence). Intelligence was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Everything about the laws of nature are such that intelligence is built into the laws of nature.

No break in causality there. In fact, it is causality which sinks your argument.

 

[sealybobo]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

 

[westwall]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

 

[Czernobog]

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not. Either the universe is causal, or it isn't. Either events follow a causal chain back to the start, or they don't. Which is it? You tell me. Causal, or a-causal?

 

[westwall]

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not. Either the universe is causal, or it isn't. Either events follow a causal chain back to the start, or they don't. Which is it? You tell me. Causal, or a-causal?

The Universe is provably causal, but that doesn't preclude a Creator.

Are we clear?

 

[Czernobog]

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not. Either the universe is causal, or it isn't. Either events follow a causal chain back to the start, or they don't. Which is it? You tell me. Causal, or a-causal?

The Universe is provably causal, but that doesn't preclude a Creator.

Are we clear?

No we aren't. "The universe is probably causal". So, you don't know if the universe is causal? Because everything we know about physics, and science is based on the understanding that the universe is causal. So you are saying physics "probably" functions. And while a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

 

[westwall]

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not. Either the universe is causal, or it isn't. Either events follow a causal chain back to the start, or they don't. Which is it? You tell me. Causal, or a-causal?

The Universe is provably causal, but that doesn't preclude a Creator.

Are we clear?

No we aren't. "The universe is probably causal". So, you don't know if the universe is causal? Because everything we know about physics, and science is based on the understanding that the universe is causal. So you are saying physics "probably" functions. And while a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

PROVABLY. Is English a second language for you?

 

[Czernobog]

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

And you ignore the fact that if there is a God, and I make no such claim, that THEY set the rules of the Universe. If the Universe is a construct, it conforms to rules that its creator wrote.

Your claim is if the Universe is causal, that is self evident proof of a lack of a God. That is false.

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not. Either the universe is causal, or it isn't. Either events follow a causal chain back to the start, or they don't. Which is it? You tell me. Causal, or a-causal?

The Universe is provably causal, but that doesn't preclude a Creator.

Are we clear?

No we aren't. "The universe is probably causal". So, you don't know if the universe is causal? Because everything we know about physics, and science is based on the understanding that the universe is causal. So you are saying physics "probably" functions. And while a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

PROVABLY. Is English a second language for you?

*shakes my head in shame* I thought that was a typo, and you meant probably. LOL. Sorry.

 

[Czernobog]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.